SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33480

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR. N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J
DR. ANSUYA KADAM D/O MALLIKARJUN KADAM – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 200458 OF 2023 (S-REG) | WRIT PETITION NO. 200687 OF 2024 (S-REG)



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.P.KULKARNI
For the Respondents: SMT.ARATI PATIL, SRI. SUDARSHAN.M.

The court established that guest lecturers performing similar work to permanent faculty must receive equal pay and their employment should comply with regularization procedures set by statutory regulations.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 - Sections 53, 55, and 56 - UGC Act - Section 14 & 26 - Regularization of Guest Lecturers - The petitioners employed as guest lecturers in Gulbarga University for over 15 years challenged the circular for new appointments, claiming entitlement to regularization. The court found the practice of employing guest faculty without appropriate appointment procedures exploitative and contrary to legal standards, mandating regularization and equal pay. (Paras 1-99)

(B) Equal Pay for Equal Work - The court emphasized that guest lecturers performing the duties of regular faculty should receive equivalent remuneration, stating that exploitative practices violate constitutional guarantees. (Paras 89-92)

Table of Content
1. petitioners claim long-term guest lecturer positions (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioners seek regularization of positions (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. comparison with other lecturer cases (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. university's response on statutory compliance (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. university counters regularization claims (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. petitioners’ workload compared to permanent faculty (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. universities must comply with staffing guidelines (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
8. employment patterns of guest faculty (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
9. increased workload justification for guest faculty (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
10. ugc regulations on lecturer employment (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
11. limitations of guest lecturer appointments (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)
12. regulatory compliance for teaching appointments (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
13. legitimacy of guest lecturer positions questioned (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65)
14. conditions for guest faculty appointments (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69)
15. employment framework under karnataka state universities act (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73)
16. procedure for teacher appointments (Para 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78)
17. limits on temporary and part-time appointments (Para 79 , 80)
18. temporary contracts must comply with defined limits (Para 81 , 82 , 83)
19. invalidity of guest lecturer appointments emphasized (Para 84 , 85 , 86)
20. unequal treatment and constitutional violation (Para 87 , 88 , 89)
21. court criticizes exploitative employment practices (Para 90 , 91 , 92)
22. impact of underpayment on education quality (Para 93 , 94)
23. court orders regularization and salary parity for petitioners (Para 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99)
24. judgment conclusion and order for petitioners (Para 100)

CAV ORDER

1. These petitions are by Dr.Ansuya Kadam, Dr.Udayakumar, Dr.Vidhyadhar S. N., who state that they were appointed as Guest Lecturers in the year 2003 and 2005, and have rendered services as Guest Lecturers for more than 15 years and, hence they were entitled to be regularized.

2. The petitioners have produced service certificates to indicate the length of their service and, the details of the certificate produced are as follows:

PetitionerDate
1st petitioner (Anusuya Kadam)

a.2003 to 2004

b.15.07.2004 to 01.02.2005

c.02.02.2005 to 31.02.2005

d.01.10.2005 to 15.11.2005 and 29.12.2005 to 31.03.2006

e.02.01.2007 to 21.04.2007

f. 15.10.2007 to 15.05.2008

g.07.08.2008 to 25.11.2008 and 01.01.2009 to 16.05.2009

h.2010-11

i. 2011 to 2014

j.2014 to 2016

2nd Petitioner (Udaya Kumar Rawookar)a.2003 to 2004 b.01.09.2004 to 31.03.2005. c.26.08.2009 to 17.12.2009 and 13.01.2010 to 30.04.2010 d.20.10.2010 to 15.12.2010 e.07.10.2011 to 23.12.2011 and 01.02.2012 to 31.05.2012 f. 04.08.2012 to 31.05.2013 g. 16.08.2013 to 31.05.2014 h. 16.08.2014 to 06.06.2015 i.17.08.2015 to 31.05.2016 j. 01.08.2016 to 17.05.2017
3rdPetitioner (VidyadharNaganahalli)a. 2005 to 2006 b. 2006 to 2007 c. 2008 to 2009 d.26.08.2009 to 17.12.2009 and 13.01.2010 to 30.04.2009 e.07.10.2011 to 23.12.2011 and 01.02.2012 to 31.05.2012 f.08.09.2010 to 25.11.2010 and 24.01.2011 to 25.05.2011 g. 2011 to 2014 h. 2014 to 2016

3. This Court, vide order dated 03.09.2024, directed the Third Respondent to pay salaries for the period 2022–23, leading to an inference that the services were indeed obtained from the petitioners from 2017 onwards. Therefore, upon a cumulative consideration of the facts, it is evident that the petitioners have been engaged in service from 2003 – 2017 & 2017- 2023, amounting to nearly 15 years of service.

4. It is their case that they had submitted several representations to regularize their services and had approached this Court when they went unconsidered and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had issued a direction to consider said representations in W.P.No.207758-760/2017 within a period of four months. They contend that the University has not considered their representations, and on the other hand,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top